Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129841 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 129841 

v COA: 264238

 Oakland CC: 2004-195667-FH 

RHASIAON ROSS SMITH, 2004-196105-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for 

resentencing in light of People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, Offense 

Variable 13 should be scored at zero. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED. 

CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in our Court’s order to remand for resentencing in light of People v 

Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). I write separately to note an apparent split at the Court 

of Appeals regarding the number of sentencing information reports that trial courts must 

prepare when a defendant has multiple convictions. In an appropriate case and in the 

absence of legislative action, this Court may need to consider this issue. Because 

defendant did not preserve the question, I would not address it in this case. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2

 In People v Mack, 265 Mich App 122, 128 (2005), relying on MCL 771.14,1

 the 

Court of Appeals stated that “for sentencing on multiple concurrent convictions, a 

[presentence information report] would only be prepared for the highest crime class 

felony conviction and would [not] be prepared for each of the defendant’s multiple 

convictions.” But in People v Johnigan, 265 Mich App 463, 472 (2005), relying on MCL 

777.21(2),2

 the Court of Appeals stated that, despite the requirement for the probation 

department to score the guidelines only for the highest crime class, “the sentencing court 

must score the guidelines for the remaining crimes as well.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, 

these two decisions may impose competing obligations with respect to the number of 

sentencing investigation reports when a defendant has multiple convictions. We do not, 

however, reach the issue here because defendant has not preserved it. 

1

 MCL 771.14 provides in part: 

(2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) 

shall include all of the following: 

* * * 

(e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set 

forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: 

(i) For each conviction for which a consecutive sentence is 

authorized or required, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that 

contains the recommended minimum sentence range. 

(ii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), for each crime 

having the highest crime class, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII 

that contains the recommended minimum sentence range. 

(iii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), the computation 

that determines the recommended minimum sentence range for the crime 

having the highest crime class. 

(iv) A specific statement as to the applicability of intermediate 

sanctions, as defined in section 31 of chapter IX. 

(v) The recommended sentence. 

2

 MCL 777.21(2) provides: 

If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to 

section 14 of chapter IX, score each offense as provided in this part. 

l0627 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 30, 2006 

Clerk